August 28, 2007 3:12
Wip on Holiday
The news of late has been filled with stories of how Americans are horrible at taking vacations--that we carry with us our Blackberries, our file cabinets, our guilt. Well, dangit, I'm gonna prove 'em wrong. WiP is on holiday--really on holiday--for a week. Back 9/5. Cheerio.
August 27, 2007 9:34
Google yourself to uncover the lies
This weekend, The New York Times' ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, wrote his column about how the Internet age is screwing the subjects of erroneous or misleading articles. He writes:
A business strategy of The New York Times to get its articles to pop up first in Internet searches is creating a perplexing problem: long-buried information about people that is wrong, outdated or incomplete is getting unwelcome new life.
He cites the case of a New York City human resources official whose resignation amid an unrelated case of fraud--fraud he had helped uncover, in fact--made it appear in news reports that his leaving had to do with the fraud. Today, he worries clients who Google his name continue to receive that impression, as the Times article reporting this misimpression is the first to come up in such a search.
Even as a journalist--or maybe especially so--this strikes me as particularly heinous. Wrong information is related about you in a news article, so thousands, maybe even millions, of readers form a skewed impression of you. Then, because the media outlet has the money and man power to make use of search optimization tools, that erroroneous article continues to pop up in perpetuity on the Internet. Among other the victims of this double trauma, according to Hoyt:
A person arrested years ago on charges of fondling a child said the accusation was false and the charges were dropped. The Times reported the arrest but not the disposition of the case. A woman said her wedding announcement 20 years ago gave the incorrect university from which she graduated. She is afraid prospective employers who Google her will suspect résumé inflation. A woman quoted years ago in an article about weight loss said, tearfully, that she never was a size 16, as the article stated. The husband of a school administrator in the Midwest complained that a news brief reporting her suspension was published after officials had already publicly said she did nothing wrong.
Sure, it hurts that family or friends might think you're fatter than you are. But to me a graver injustice awaits job seekers or business people who have been falsely portrayed in a news piece. That woman whose alma mater was wrongly reported rightly worries: many employers Google candidates before they hire, scouring Facebook and MySpace for clues on character. And you're not safe just because you're on staff; we all know how snoopy bosses have gotten lately.
So Google yourself--not just if you're job surfing, but with regularity. And what do you do if an old community announcement pops up telling the world you came in second at the all-state high-school debates--when you came in first, dammit, first? Hoyt's article offers a clue. Media outlets are "stumped" about how to deal with this issue; it's "impossible" to re-report every old article containing an alleged error. But they've taken a first step,
correcting even very old errors when a person can offer proof, like a university diploma in the case of the erroneous wedding announcement.
What he's saying is that it's incumbent upon the wronged to correct the wrong--until they think of something better. That's good advice, regardless. Yes, we media types have to take even greater care about the accuracy of our reporting in this age when news lasts forever. But mistakes will get made. We're all the managers of our own brands now. It's up to us to keep it shiny.
So start digging for that debate trophy.
(Google yourself and tell me: what comes up first? Me: TIME comes up only third; I guess my big media boss's search optimization tools have a few kinks...)
POST-SCRIPT: Blogger Jason Sperber of RiceDaddies sends in this article, by Poynter Institute scribe Fons Tuinstra titled "The Power of a Blog"--it's exactly what I mean.
August 24, 2007 10:16
Let us stop stereotyping Generation Y workers
There's an article titled "How Will Millennials Manage?" on Harvard Business School's web site. It's written by James Heskett, a professor at Harvard's b-school. According to his own experience and that of the many managers he's known and interviewed, Heskett writes this summary of the work habits of Generation Y (bolds mine):
They are generally bright, cheery, seemingly well-adjusted, and cooperative. They'll pull an "all-nighter" for a good reason, but they won't let that kind of thing intrude regularly on their personal lives. Their work styles are sometimes confounding. They need to work in a social environment, often one that would appear to some of us as chaotic. This means, however, that they are very good at working in teams. They are good at multi-tasking, understand how to employ technology productively, and as a result can often produce good work at what appears to be the last minute. They are focused on their own personal development. They want an accelerated path to success, often exaggerate the impact of their own contributions, are not willing "to pay the price," and have little fear of authority. As a result, they are often not a good bet for long-term employment, because they are quite willing to seek other employment (or no employment) rather than remain in a job in which they are not growing. They want their managers to understand their needs and lay out career options. As the authors of a recent book, Managing the Generation Mix, put it, they demand "the immediate gratification of making an immediate impact by doing meaningful work immediately." In short, they are high maintenance, high risk, and often high output employees.
You've heard this all before, especially if you're actually of the group born after 1978. Americans loooove to slap labels on groups of people--seems the bigger the group and the broader the generalizations, the better. It's hugely annoying if you're the one being labeled--particularly if the label is negative. But the stereotyping is so rampant that pretty much all of grown-up, working American thinks today's young workers are, in a world, spoiled.
I propose a moratorium on workforce labeling. It irks me no end to be lumped in with all working moms (conflicted, frantic, bitter!), or with all of Generation X (surly, lazy, no-good!), or with all gum-chewing, karate-chopping 36-year-old writers in New York of multi-ethnic descent (oh, right, that's probably just me).
It's not that some of those labels don't apply; all you Millennials (gah, I hate that term--propose others, readers, puh-leeze!) probably see something of yourselves in Prof. Heskell's description, too. But fer cryin' out loud. Does it really do anybody any good in any work situation to stick people in behavioral categories? I'm sure there's an industrial/organizational psychologist out there who'd argue--well, yes, it does help. But in the open forum of public discourse, I argue it doesn't.
Let us be who we are. Let us prove our own worth. Let young people new to the workforce discover their career strengths and weaknesses on their own, without the weight of cultural expectations. Let's stop stereotyping Gen Y workers.
August 23, 2007 2:26
Four-year job plan for college students
I just got off the phone with a guy in Gaza who coordinates a jobs program there for college graduates. Unemployment there is sky high even for college grads, in large part because the economy is in shambles but also because universities fail to prepare students for real-life careers. Accounting majors may gain a thorough grasp of finance theory, for example, yet have no clue how to apply the practices to market situations. That, and their land is often under attack.
You Millenials are sick and tired of all the old farts telling you how lucky you are, how you've got it so easy. But c'mon. You've got to admit your lot is loads better than that of someone who can't attend classes the next few weeks because the campus is getting shelled.
We'll make it even easier for you. The folks at ERE, a global network of recruiters, has devised this year-by-year action plan.
Freshmen: Make Connections, But Post Wisely
Review what you've posted online, whether it's on MySpace, Facebook or your own blog. "Employers you may apply with in the future will be searching for you online, so don't post anything you wouldn't want your parents to see," says ERE's Editor in Chief Todd Raphael.Network and make connections in person and online. Other students, their siblings, parents and friends, can be great sources of career advice and referrals.
Sophomores: Get Involved
To increase your potential value to employers, cultivate relationships with your professors. "Recruiters at the hottest companies are increasingly going to professors and asking them who their brightest students are," says Raphael. "Students should demonstrate that they're motivated, hard-working and think creatively."Get involved in campus organizations and jobs that you most enjoy. If you're interested in politics, work with the local Board of Elections on Election Day. Interested in non-profits? Organize a charity event.
Juniors: Intern, Learn and Plan
Work with your career center to develop your resume and identify strengths and areas of improvement. This is the time to boost your skills and weed out what you don't like.Internships are an invaluable tool to increase your marketability with employers post-graduation. Consider an internship in an area that's not your strongest suit. If you want to be a better writer, look for a gig with a lot of writing.
Seniors: Explore Opportunities Off the Beaten Path
Everyone will want to interview with Google, but there are also jobs available at lesser-known companies in growing sectors like transportation, energy, defense and even foodservice. "Jobs at quietly successful companies can be really rewarding," adds Raphael.Consider relocating. There are a lot of job opportunities in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Utah, the California desert and Florida.
August 21, 2007 5:02
Three signs of a miserable job
How much do Americans hate their jobs? A Gallup poll found that about 77% of Americans hate their jobs. Another found Americans hate their jobs more than in the past 20 years; fewer than half say they're satisfied. Other surveys have found that 87% of Americans don’t like their jobs.
Then there's this University of Chicago study from last week:
86% of the people interviewed between 1972 and 2006 said they were satisfied at the jobs, with 48% saying they were very satisfied. Only 4% reported being very dissatisfied. These levels have remained essentially unchanged over the last four decades. The most satisfied workers were those working after age 65, those with more education, and those with higher incomes. Blacks, Hispanics, and people doing unskilled labor were the least happy. The results are reported in “Job Satisfaction in America: Trends and Socio-Demographic Correlates” by Tom W. Smith, Director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
Not sure what to make of that diametric discrepancy. But Pat Lencioni falls firmly in the first camp--so much so that his new book (he calls it a "fable") is titled Three Signs of a Miserable Job. Lencioni, a leadership consultant, speaker and author, writes me this thoughtful e-mail:
I became interested in this topic because, as a kid, I watched my dad trudge off to work each day and became somewhat obsessed with the notion of job misery. Somewhere along the line, I came to the frightening realization that people spend so much time at work yet so many of them were unfulfilled and frustrated in their jobs. As I got older, I came to another realization – that job misery was having a devastating impact on individuals, and on society at large. It seemed to me that understanding the cause of the problem, and finding a solution for it, was a worthy focus for my career.
No argument there. So how does Lencioni define a miserable job?
In my view, a miserable job is not the same as a bad one. A bad job lies in the eye of the beholder. One person’s dream job might be another person’s nightmare.
But a miserable job is universal. It is one that makes a person cynical and frustrated and demoralized when they go home at night. It drains them of their energy, their enthusiasm and their self-esteem. Miserable jobs can be found in every industry and at every level. Professional athletes, CEOs and actors can be – and often are – as miserable as ditch diggers, janitors and fast food workers.
Huh. CEOs are miserable?
Attend any kind of social gathering, anywhere in the country, and talk about work. The stories and anecdotal evidence confirming job misery are overwhelming. Misery spans all income levels, ages and geography. A recent Gallup poll found that 77% of people hate their jobs. Gallup also contends that this ailing workforce is costing employers more than $350 billion dollars in lost productivity. The Conference Board has found that Americans are growing increasingly unhappy with their jobs.
Anyway, his book outlines three signs of job misery:
The first is anonymity, which is the feeling that employees get when they realize that their manager has little interest in them a human being and that they know little about their lives, their aspirations and their interests.
The second sign is irrelevance, which takes root when employees cannot see how their job makes a difference in the lives of others. Every employee needs to know that the work they do impacts someone’s life – a customer, a co-worker, even a supervisor – in one way or another.
The third sign is something I call immeasurement, which I realize isn’t actually a word. It’s the inability of employees to assess for themselves their contribution or success. Employees ho have no means of measuring how well they are doing on a given day or in a given week, must rely on the subjective opinions of others, usually their managers, to gauge their progress or contribution.
So what do we do about all this job misery?
The primary source and the potential cure for this misery reside in the hands of one individual – the direct manager. There are countless studies confirming this statement, including both Gallup and The Blanchard Companies. Both organizations have found that an employee’s relationship with their direct manager is the most important determinant to employee satisfaction (over pay, benefits, perks, work-life balance etc).
As simple as the three signs are, the fact remains that few managers
1. take a genuine interest in their people,
2. remind them of the impact that their work has on others, and
3. help them establish creative ways to measure and assess their performance.
But surely managers want a relatively happy staff; after all, happy workers are hard workers. Besides, what jerk would want to head up an office teeming with misery? Why wouldn't a manager take those easy-sounding steps to ensure a satisfied workforce?
First, many managers think they are too busy. Of course, the real problem is that most of those managers see themselves primarily as individual contributors who happen to have direct reports. They fail to realize that the most important part of their jobs is providing their people with what they need to be productive and fulfilled (a.k.a. not miserable) in their jobs.
The second reason that managers don’t provide their employees with the three things they need is that they simply forget what is was like when they were a little lower on the food chain. They somehow forget how important it was to them when a supervisor took an interest in them, talked to them about why their work really mattered and gave them a means for evaluating their progress.
Finally, many managers don’t do this because they are embarrassed or afraid to try. They fear that their employees will see them as being disingenuous or manipulative, or that by taking an interest in their personal lives they will be stepping into inappropriate territory. It’s almost as though they fail to understand the difference between the interview process (where no personal questions are allowed) and the actual work experience (treat people like a full human being).
August 20, 2007 10:45
How to attend a job fair
a) Register.
b) Walk in.
c) Start talking.
Ah, if only it were as easy. I've been to a few job fairs in recent months, both as a recruiter for my company and as a reporter. I admit I've been surprised and at times appalled at the lack of skill, decorum and brains among some of the job candidates.
I could more easily excuse the jobseekers at the job fair for veterans I attended in Chicago; ex-soldiers aren't adequately trained for civilian job hunting, a fault I lay at the feet of their former employer, the military. And boy, did they try. I saw soldier after soldier work up the nerve to approach a recruiter and blurt out a request for an application. Some managed to strike up animated conversations. Almost all were dressed in neat, clean clothing. And every jobseeker should take lessons in posture from a Marine.
Then there was the publishing job fair my company's HR department sent me to a month ago. It was held at an Ivy League university's graduate journalism department. The participants of the job fair had just completed a summer course--a sort of finishing school for recent grads interested in the publishing biz.
These women--and they were all women--were nothing if not prepped. True, they were seeking work in an industry notoriously difficult to break into. But they (well, their parents) had just paid for the finest career-prep program money could buy. Almost all had undergrad degrees from the nation's most prestigious schools. Many appeared to come from highly educated, highly accomplished families.
Yet a few alarming trends emerged. The ones who approached me expressed keen interest in reporting jobs at TIME magazine. Yet not a one carried any clips (our calling card in this biz). None could name a section of the magazine, despite professing to have read it since childhood. Few exhibited any knowledge of widely reported news about our publication, such as our recent redesign or our new managing editor. When asked what beat they were most passionate about, they responded vaguely: "oh, arts"..."politics, or maybe fashion"..."beat? What's a beat?" All took my business card, but only one followed up.
(But the worst job-fair etiquette boo-boo happened at the booth next to mine. I overheard this exchange:
Interviewer from Time Inc.: "If you had your pick, at which magazine would you most want to work?"
Interviewee: "Vanity Fair." Vanity Fair is owned by Condé Nast.)
Now, I'm not a hiring manager, as I made clear to all the candidates, but I'm a conduit to one. The one candidate who stood out to me--the one who appeared calm, professional, eager, trained, and, overall, a good fit for our unique culture--I heartily recommended to the chief of reporters, who promptly had her in for a real interview.
Still not convinced? Here are some words of advice for attending a job fair, from Lynne Sarikas, director of the MBA Career Center at Northeastern University's College of Business Administration:
How to prepare for a job fair:
• Prepare to sell yourself. Have an "elevator" pitch ready to introduce yourself positively to employers and to quickly give them the headlines of who you are, what you are looking for and what makes you unique.
• Prepare to present the best first impression. Wear your best business attire. A professional, conservative business suit is appropriate; exercise good personal hygiene; avoid heavy fragrances and flashy attire.• Prepare by educating yourself on the companies. Review the list of participating companies; research each company, know what they do, who their customers are, what types of positions they are hiring for and any recent issues that have been in the press. Differentiate yourself from others by being knowledgeable about the company.
• Prepare by having an event strategy. Don't start at the first table by the door and work your way around the room; you may spend more time waiting in line and miss the companies you most need to see. Prioritize the companies you need to see and focus on meeting with those on the top of your list. Quickly scope the room to see if a top priority company has no line or a very short one, but be willing to wait for those most important to you.
• Have an ample supply of your resumé. Make sure it is perfect - no typos. Hand out your business card as well.
• Follow-up is critical. Help them remember you by sending a polite, professional thank you note within 24 hours of the event. Thank them for their time. Let them know what interested you from your conversation. They met many students that day so help them remember you, my personal preference is sending a handwritten note so you don't get lost in their long list of e-mails.
August 20, 2007 9:25
Notes from TIME's blogging tutorial
On Friday I arranged a tutorial at TIME on blogging for journalists by pioneer blogger Anil Dash. (Dash is also a top executive at Six Apart, the company behind TIME's blog publishing platform, Movable Type.) Below are some of his tips--many useful for any blogger, whether you write for big media or not.
The session wasn't without controversy. Some of his ideas feel like "anathema" to longtime journalists, as one in attendance told me later. That's okay. I didn't agree with everything Dash said, either, but it's good to shake up our thinking once in a while. Let me know what you think in the comments; longtime bloggers, add your tips, and journalists, tell us if you think the whole blogging thing is a dangerous fad that's going to turn our craft to horse manure.
On creating and writing a blog:
• Narrow your focus. Select a topic as narrow as your interests will allow. If you're a science reporter, and court cases surrounding medical ethics fascinate you, blog about that. The narrower your focus, the more expert you'll become.
• Write for skimmability. Bullets, gray-out quotes and lists are "culturally endemic" to blogs, says Dash. Blog readers are trained to surf quickly from page to page; a little visual variation attracts more eyeballs than a block of single-spaced text. This is doubly important for jounalists because we must...
• Use photos and other art with care. Unlike lone bloggers, we who blog for corporate sites must beware the liberal--read unsanctioned--use of art. That's 'cause the legit owners of the art would find it more financially rewarding to claim compensation from our rich corporate bosses than they would Joe Bob blogging from his trailer in Tennessee. Even photos that appear in the pages of our publications aren't automatically ours to post unless they're cleared for use online. Always check with your editor before you slap up an image you yourself didn't create, or that you didn't cull from an open source.
• Sell the content with the hed. We here at TIME are used to composing evocative, clever headlines that may not necessarily describe the contents of the article. On the magazine page, there's a lot more to tell the reader what the article's about, and therefore draw her in: the subhed, the photo, the pull-quote. But on a blog, those elements don't always exist. Plus, most wind up on your site not because they read it faithfully every day but through a link on a search engine or another site. That reader (or, even more importantly, another blogger looking to link) may or may not get that "The Way of K" refers to an article about Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski.
• Don't worry about breaking news. Say--what? Isn't that our raison d'etre? Nah--not when you're blogging. Leave the news-breaking to the main site, or to the publication. But do comment on breaking news. Blog readers already know Rove's leaving; they want to know what you think about his sorry legacy.
• Stop assuming you have to have all the information before you post. Whoa! Telling journalists they should publish before they finish reporting is like telling traders to sell before they own the stock (oh, wait, that's called short-selling, and investors do that all the time). You're going to have to weigh that one on your own or with your bosses. Dash--who's not a journalist--argues that readers are interested in the process; that posting your notes as you travel cross country during your exposé on the pig-farming industry would gather lots of eyeballs. But that brings up the question: how much should a journalist who also blogs reveal about his current projects? Why should we show our hand to the competition? After some discussion, we agreed it's better to...
• Post post-mortem notes on published articles. Dash notes that readers want to see the sausage getting made, and blogs are a perfect forum for that. How did we get turned on to the story? What hurdles did we face in the reporting? Blogging post-mortem is a great way to use notes and interviews that we thought illuminating but that didn't make it into the piece for one reason or another. It's also a great way to link to other articles on the site, which leads us to the next tip:
• Make heavy use of your archives. We here at TIME sit on a veritable treasure trove of past articles. When I posted an interview recently with an expert on emotional intelligence, for example, I linked to TIME's widely read 1995 cover, "The EQ Factor," by Nancy Gibbs--which many of you clicked through to read. Advertisers still measure web viewership by page views, so getting readers to click through helps your main site's business.
More tips TK tomorrow. (Glossary: TK is journalese for "to come." Which you'd know if you've read this far, as you're probably one of us--an ink-stained wretch with a blogging habit.)
August 16, 2007 9:18
Want more vacation? Run for President
My friend Gerry writes in an e-mail this morning:
Tonight's Daily Show "reported" that Geo. Bush has taken 423 vacation days in his 6 1/2 years in office. That's 9 weeks' vacation a year. Sure, he has a stressful job, what with screwing up the world and imposing his supposed Christian morals on the rest of us normal folk, but that's a lot of brush clearing for a president, no? It sure beats the average American's 2 weeks a year.
I saw that segment, too: Samantha Bee of Comedy Central's nightly faux news show reported from what it called the "western White House"--Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex.--where the Prez has spent many of those vaca days. Here's the vid:
So much of what the President does flies in the face of ordinary Americans' practices that I suppose this shouldn't surprise me. After all, we're notorious shirkers of holidays; MSNBC contributor Rob Lovitt writes,
According to a study by Expedia.com, 51 million Americans — 35 percent of the adult work force — do not take all the vacation they earn. On average, says the study, we now give up three days of vacation per year. Not only that, but we get less vacation time to begin with than workers in every other country in the study.
But not if you run the country! This, folks, is a terrific reason to join the race for the White House in 2008. There's still time--heck, a whole year! Just think of the perks this job brings: your very own chef; your very own Secret Service handle; your very own military. Think of the travel, the wardrobe, the freedom to call world leaders whatever nickname you deem fit (Shinzo Abe "Lincoln"! Stinky Sarkozy!).
Best of all, you get to take vacation any freakin' time you want. Tired of the endless criticism from the press about your disastrous war policy? Take a break! Frustrated by Congress's apparent inability to remake the nation's laws as you wish? Off to the ranch! Sleepy? It's holiday time!
In the U.S., the average number of paid vacation days after five years on the job is 13.6, according to the Economic Policy Institute; after 10, it's 16.2. Of course, unlike every other developed nation, the U.S. mandates no paid vacation days; even workaholic Japan demands its employers give workers 10 paid days a year.
It's nice to see the President taking the lead on this issue. Surely big employers will take his frequent vacationing as a hint and pony up more days for their employees. Studies have shown that vacations help recharge workers, increase their productivity and improve their quality of work. Works for Bush, doesn't it?
August 14, 2007 9:00
Death by e-mail
This week I'm sitting in for an editor who's on holiday. August is when a lot of magazine journalists travel, and our staff right now is skeletal. You know they're desperate when they ask the likes of me to manage a section. I am the dregs, people. The grill scrapings. The underside of the barrel.
Anyway, among the innumerable annoyances of being the boss of people, the torrent of e-mail feels particularly deathly. I mean, wow. I would say my inbox has ballooned by, I don't know, tenfold. The bell seems to ding every minute with a new batch. I'm developing a Pavlovian response to that ding. Once it evoked the pleasant anticipation of a doorbell; now I'm thinking that behind that door is a Jehovah's Witness (as a contestant said on Last Comic Standing, I got nothing against those folks, but that's a long conversation).
The thing is, I'm guilty of adding to the avalanche in my regular role as worker bee. I'm big on the cc. If I come across an interesting story or data in my web trolls, I forward it to a half dozen folks who might find it relevant. If I'm out of the office, I let every boss who may want me know. In other words, I practice C.O.A. e-mail etiquette.
In my current and extremely temporary role as boss person, I find I do the hot potato too. If someone asks me something, I cc a few others in the reply so they can weigh in. I probably wouldn't do that if I were a real boss because I'd know the answers.
Of course, this will not happen. I will never be a real boss person because I don't want to die by e-mail.
August 14, 2007 12:53
Ni hao to my peeps in China
I'm not sure why, but lately I've noticed an increase in traffic from China. Despite the slanty eyes, I'm not Chinese—I'm Japanese (yes, white folks, I know we all look the same to you). I guess you could count an association by marriage: my two brothers both married girls of Chinese descent, but my blog readers can't have known that (till now). I've been to Hong Kong and Taiwan a few times, but never to the mainland. I can't speak Mandarin or Cantonese, except for hello and thank you--oh, and I can count to 10 really quickly, which is a really useful skill if you're, say, angling to report at the 2008 Olympics. I can sort of read a trace of written Chinese, only because my Japanese ancestors copped many of their characters for ours.
What's interesting is that my Chinese readers don't just comment; they write me e-mail. Usually in English, though sometimes in characters (which my computer at work for some reason mashes into just one character, gaku, which means school or learning). The content, though, is puzzling. They're not writing to tell me about the $60 million they've been given by a deposed dictator, of which they'll give me 10% if only I would reveal my bank account number. They're not telling me deeply intimate stories of nightlife in Shanghai. They're not haranguing me to join a religious or mathematical cult.
In fact, they don't ask me for anything. They just state their enthusiasm for the blog, and usually somewhere in there mention that they're working on their English language skills.
It's weird, isn't it? Who are these perfectly nice, earnest people who read strangers' blogs in foreign languages and then write them personal notes? Do they not have jobs? Do they not have lives? Do they not have better reading material?
So then I wondered: maybe other bloggers out there are experiencing the same thing. Maybe this is one of those 100th monkey thingies, where suddenly a whole nation has decided that a good way to learn English was to contact obscure bloggers and strike up a correspondence. (Now that I think about it, this makes sense: of all the endless reading on the Internet, perhaps the pickins are somewhat slimmer over in China, where the more provocative and interesting blogs are probably censored.)
If that's the case, well, welcome. I don't really have it in me to be e-mail buddies with all of you, but it's nice you're checking us out. While you're here, read our excellent China blog, if you haven't yet. And when my potty mouth runs rampant, just ignore--creative cursing is the work of trained professionals and should not be tried at home.
August 13, 2007 1:36
Rove: "For the sake of my family"
Why is it that politicians like to cite family as their main reason for quitting a job? Karl Rove is the latest. In an interview with Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot (bolds mine),
"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.
In an e-mail to friends, he wrote,
Later this morning, it will be announced I will leave the White House by month's end. It has been an extraordinary privilege to serve our country and this President. I have enjoyed every day of my service. It has been the honor of a lifetime.
But it has been over 14 years since this President started his race for Governor and over 10 years since the thinking and planning about a Presidential bid began. In that time, I've asked a lot of Darby and Andrew [wife and son] and now is the right time to begin thinking about the next chapter in our family's life.
So call me a cynic. But does anyone actually believe that someone steps down from a lifetime of hard-driving politics to go hang with his wife and--oh, right, his son who's already away at college? To me, the timing says a lot. When Karen Hughes left, she too cited family. But she was at the time in steep ascent, a loyal and lauded aide to the president. Not only that, but her children were of school age. I could totally believe her spin that she wanted to take a step back and focus on her family life.
(And whatever you've got to say about Bush as commander in chief, you've got to give him props as a boss for then taking her back with open arms when she was ready. Then again, as The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pointed out in this 2002 article,
This is an administration that wants to raise the hourly work requirement for single mothers coming off welfare to 40 hours a week. Without adding any money for child care.
This is an administration that bailed out airlines but didn't cover the health care of the laid-off employees.And while we're at it, this is an administration that opposes a measly 24-hour expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act so that parents can go to school conferences or doctor appointments.)
Maybe I'm being sexist here, but when a male empty nester of 56 says he's quitting a high-powered, highly compensated job for more family time, it actually makes me angry. It somehow mocks the yearning of millions of working moms and dads with small kids and grinding jobs, folks who can't quit their livelihood to focus on parenthood, folks who tear their hair our arranging for someone else to do the childcare and school pick-up and homework oversight because they've got to bring home a buck.
Look, I'm sure he's not kidding when he says his wife and son put up with a lot. And I can certainly imagine one does reach a point in a political life when one wants nothing but to escape the hurly-burly. I just wish these guys would man up and say so.
August 10, 2007 10:12
Annoying: e-mail sigs
So many of you have weighed in so hilariously about the most annoying workplace habits that I feel compelled to expand with another: the increasingly popular e-mail signature. They began as simple text appended to the bottom of the e-mail, typically stating the sender's pertinent work-related information (title, address, fax). Then they began to have some simple design element, like the company logo.
Lately, though, e-mailers can download a plethora of emoticons, images, even avatars with which to sign off. Companies like Meez.com let you choose avatars, or virtual selves, to affix to e-mail; Brightcast even lets you attach videos to every single e-mail. Read this fascinating WSJ.com article about the trend by Katherine Rosman.
I've got nothing against folks expressing themselves visually in e-mail; I figure it's the equivalent of scented letter paper or kitty cats printed on personal checks. Okay, I'm not a fan of those, either. But whatever: it's your stationery.
The problem is that when you impose your visual expressiveness on me electronically, it takes up precious bandwidth. My company allots us limited e-mail memory, and attachments like these hog up a surprising amount. When I get that notice telling me I'm over my limit, the first ones that go in the trash are these (note to PR people: don't automatically send me attachments unless I ask for them, please).
So just to be annoying, I went to Meez.com and created my own avatar. It's a goofy little thing that doesn't really look like me, but it was fun and easy. But don't worry: you won't see the virtual me dancing around at the bottom of my work-related e-mails.
August 9, 2007 9:02
Top 10 annoying workplace habits
A buddy of mine recently asked to have his cubicle reassigned because the woman next to him was a loud phone talker. You know the type: they speak at normal human decibels in real life, but when they get on the phone, they can't help but shout. Sometimes I worry I'm slightly in that camp; I blame mild hearing loss due to living with a clarinet player who insists on practicing the E-flat in front of the Yankee game.
Monster.com has compiled a hit list of the 10 worst traits among workers. They were suggested by someone named Jen Star of The Jennifer Group, a "New York City-based recruiting firm that specializes in placing and maintaining support staff." I don't agree with them all, mainly because they're not snarky enough. Not being self-reliant or prepared aren't just annoying habits; they're deep-seated problems that require address by management.
I suggest we come up with our own list. Suggestions in the comments area, please.
1. You're Unprepared: "Showing up for meetings, interviews or arranged work sessions without the equipment or data that you need demonstrates a lack of respect for your coworkers and yourself," says Star. "And it wastes time. Get off on the right foot, and make like a scout and be prepared."
2. You're Not a Team Player: "You have to be willing to pitch in when another member of the team needs help," Star says. "There's nothing more annoying than watching somebody do a crossword puzzle while you're buried in work." And if a coworker needs a little time off to run an important errand, be flexible and help out when you can, she suggests.3. You're Not Self-Reliant: Only ask for help when you really need it. "Giving up on the paper jam after only one try and expecting a coworker to fix it because you know she can does not contribute to good team spirit," says Star. Try everything you can to solve your own problem before involving somebody else.
4. You, Umm, Smell: Your scent is important, especially when you're working in a small, poorly ventilated space with lots of other people around. Be considerate of your neighbors by taking care not to generate strong smells that will permeate their space.
For instance, don't eat eggs or onions in the office, Star suggests. And if you smoke, be sure you air yourself out before you walk back in the office. The same goes for colognes. "Fragrance is a very personal choice, so it should be reserved for those who are close to you, not 20 yards away," says Star.
5. You're Loud on the Phone: Loud telephone conversations can be offensive to your neighbors, so try to keep your voice low and even. And keep personal calls short. "Phone fights or, worse yet, phone foreplay can really drive one up a wall after a certain point," says Star. "Remember that you are not in your living room."
6. You're Unhealthy: If you're sick, stay home. If you have the sniffles or must come in, cover your mouth and do whatever you can to avoid infecting your coworkers.
7. You Walk Like an Elephant: Try to move around the office quietly to avoid disturbing the people around you. And if you must speak to another colleague, keep your voice down.
8. Your Cell Phone Is Always On: Unless absolutely necessary, cell phones should be turned off while you're in the office. If you need to keep your phone on, use a soft or silent ringer or vibrate mode.
9. Your Computer Volume Is Blasting: Nobody wants to hear somebody else's bells and whistles when they're trying to concentrate.
10. You Shake Hands Like a Fish and Avoid Eye Contact: "When somebody won't look me in the eye or give me some energy in their handshake, I feel like they're avoiding me or snubbing me in some way," Star says. "I like a firm handshake and a friendly smile."
August 8, 2007 11:14
Don't take the last donut
...is the advice captured in the title of a book on my reading pile. It's by Judith Bowman, and it outlines what she calls her "New Rules of Business Etiquette." I picked it up this morning only because donuts are on my mind, and the cover has this picture of a sugary circle of goodness with a big ol' bite taken out of it.
Donuts are on my mind because I like donuts, and it occurs to me I would eat a lot more of them if the people around me did. You've all read this week's news about how your friends make you fat. Co-workers do, too. Yesterday I had lunch with two of them, and when they ordered meat, so did I; when they ordered beer, so did I (they were small beers, boss). My usual lunch consists of a salad from the cafeteria, eaten alone in my office in between e-mails.
Here's another reason Americans are getting fat: as more people grow obese, we're conditioned to think fat is the new normal. Frank Heiland, assistant professor of economics at Florida State University, and Mary Burke, economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, co-authored a paper arguing that "the ballooning weight of the population has fed even more collective weight gain as our perception of what is considered a normal body size has changed."
As Americans continue to super-size their value meals, the average weight of the population increases and people slowly adjust their perceptions of appropriate body weight.
And though skinny bitches (to borrow the title of another book) abound in magazines and on the TV screens, Heiland and Burke say we don't, surprisingly, apply those standards to ourselves.
While it seems thinness is increasingly idealized in popular culture -- images of waif-like models and stick-thin celebrities are everywhere -- there is a gap between the cultural imagery and the weights that most people consider acceptable for themselves and others, according to Heiland.
In fact,
87 percent of Americans, including 48 percent of obese Americans, believe that their body weight falls in the “socially acceptable” range.
Back to the Bowman book. Given her background as a beauty pageant contestant and coach, it's not surprising that the book reads like a business version of pageantry how-to: stand tall! Project confidence! Dress to the nines, even if the client's a slob! And given that I am very much not ever a beauty pageant contestant, it's not surprising I would rebel against pretty much all the advice.
For instance, under "common e-mail pitfalls," Bowman advises against assuming familiarity and telling jokes. That's silly. My e-mails are electronic versions of conversations with me, and I can not help but assume familiarity and tell jokes. Her definition of funny appears to be limited to emoticons and knock-knock jokes, by which she betrays her circle of correspondence is limited to 8-year-olds.
I suppose some of the advice can be helpful to, say, a new grad who has never been around grown-ups and needs to know how precisely to shake hands (she goes through the motions step by step). And her minute-by-minute breakdown of how to give a presentation is interesting, if mainly in an anthropological sense:
Stand. Pause and allow your audience to view you from head to toe. Wait five to 15 seconds. Women should wait even a little longer.
Really? If I ever heard a speaker who led with 15 seconds of dead air time, I'd wonder if she was high.
I also found the list of business dining tips highly entertaining:
• A hamburger: Eat it like a sandwich. Cut it in half or even quarters. • Bread and butter: Break roll into thumbnail-size pieces, one at a time. Butter one piece at a time over the bread and butter plate with your personal butter spreader. Unwrap butter over the bread and butter plate...
You get the gist. But perhaps I suppose too much when I expect that most adults have these skills down; we've all been at enough business events in which someone proves themselves an unsocialized freak. If that's you, this book offers the confident opinion of someone who's clearly thought a lot about appropriate behavior in the workplace.
But I still take issue with the donuts. "Don't take the last donut," she says. "You never know, your boss might want it." What--I should abstain from that last bear claw because my boss may or may not have his eye on it? Get real. And I refuse to cut it in half or even quarters.
August 7, 2007 9:38
I saw nekkid people on my commute
Today is national underwear day. I know this because, while crossing 43rd Street on Broadway, I was nearly mowed down by a 6-foot-tall Adonis wearing nothing but painted-on red briefs. In his wake came about a dozen other model types clad in all manner of colorful undies.
And there on the island where Broadway and Seventh Avenue converge were some lovely ladies sauntering down a raised runway in nifty bra and panty sets. I had to step carefully to avoid the puddles of drool from the phalanx of suit-clad businessmen on the sidewalk.
Okay. I know a lot of you out there deal with a lot worse on your commutes: two-hour traffic snarls, urine-scented subway stops, Lite FM. But come on. Between dropping the kid at daycare and hitting my desk, all I want is lack of complication. I want the bus to arrive on time, I want the driver to be sober, I want to walk quickly through Times Square without physically touching a sweaty tourist.
As annoyances go, I admit naked models in my path don't rank that high. But it does annoy me that stunts like these are commercials masquerading as events. (This one is sponsored by a company called Freshpair. I refuse to link.) I mean, think about it: as a nation, why exactly do we need to dedicate a day to underwear? Is it a day to wear underwear, in which case one wonders if the rest of the nation goes commando the other 364 days? Is it a day to raise underwear awareness? More likely, considering its commercial roots, the sponsors hope it's a day to buy underwear, and that we'll take our cues from the fat-free freaks on the runway.
What I'm most annoyed about is that I'm wasting my precious few working brain cells thinking about this on a deadline day.
August 6, 2007 9:56
Stress makes you stupid
...or at least it does me. When I'm overwhelmed by deadlines, I say and do some dumb things. I alternately babble or go mute at meetings, I snap at my husband when he calls, and I barely suppress murderous feelings toward tourists who block my path in Times Square. Even my body becomes unintelligent, refusing to digest food or succumb to sleep.
This is because stress affects emotional intelligence, says Dr. Steven Stein. The EQ expert came to visit me here at TIME last week to discuss some new studies conducted by his company, Multi-Health Systems. EQ, if you recall, was popularized in the mid-'90s by Daniel Goleman's book Emotional Intelligence and TIME's widely read 1995 cover, "The EQ Factor," by Nancy Gibbs. It refers to the skills that allow a person to intuit other people's feelings, to convey their own, to communicate--and has little to do with book-learnin'. In the decade since, workplace psychologists have pounced on this subject, pouring hours of research into determining, for instance, if EQ can be acquired, developed, quantified and measured.
Stein's business studies many aspects of EQ, and has developed a system of assessment. His latest research focuses on the effects of stress on EQ. According to Stein's research,
A strong emotional intelligence can help build positive relationships with colleagues and improve performance – the ideal formula for workplace success. But if stress prevents us from being aware of and controlling our emotions, getting along with others, adapting to changes, and maintaining a positive mood, then our EI is going to suffer. In fact, it has been scientifically demonstrated that emotional intelligence is actually more important in predicting success in the workplace than IQ (cognitive intelligence).
Stein found that 42% of working Americans--and by working he means blue-collar, service and professional--say they "frequently" experience stress in the workplace. Yet 48% had no clue that emotional intelligence can be negatively affected by stress, and few if any people do anything about it. That doesn't surprise him; after all, he says, "only one out of nine people actually change their behavior after a heart attack, and that's even when they're told they must change or die."
According to Stein, stress harms a worker in many ways:
• It affects decision-making, making us too impulsive.
• It forces us to make mistakes.
• It causes us to ignore cues.
• It interferes with relationships with clients and colleagues.
• It lowers productivity.
Short of winning the lottery and making work-related stress disappear, workers do have some recourse, as do their employers. For workers, Stein suggests these three steps:
1. Do, delegate, delay. Prioritize, says Stein. Figure out what needs to be done, what can be done by someone else, and what can be put off. That gives people a sense of control, which helps reduce stress.
2. Turn to your social network. "It's really helpful to have a best friend at work," says Stein. "It's good to have someone to confide in: Is the workload really this terrible? Is our boss really that bad?"
3. Determine your purpose. "It helps a lot of people to step back and see the big picture. Whether you're in shipping of making shoes, in the end everyone wants to feel like they're helping people."
Bosses can play a big role in reducing employee stress, which, Stein notes, can pay off big time, as 53% of Americans say stress dampens their productivity in the workplace.
1. Assess employee work load. These days, it seems like everyone's working harder with fewer staff. Is it too much? Are some doing more than others? Listen to your supervisors and workers.
2. Set goals. This can be done during evaluations. Every employee should know his or her goals.
3. Redefine purpose. Take Timberland. The company stresses their environmental message, which helps workers feel there's a greater purpose than just selling shoes.
4. Encourage social support. Employers tend to think friendship and social events are a waste of time. They couldn't be more wrong. Studies say workers who feel happy and socially supported work harder. At Stein's company, the entire staff gathers for Friday morning bagel breakfasts. Marketing managers meet scientists. "It costs so little, and there are really important networks made," he says.
Hmm. My boss cut out our Wednesday sandwich lunches last month. And a once regular TIME tradition--the Champagne "pour"--has largely gone the way of the in-house printing press. And my network of work buddies pretty much vanished with the layoffs earlier this year. No wonder my EQ borders on retardation.
August 3, 2007 11:41
Young women earn more; angry women earn less
Some weird news on the salary front for working women (thanks to Karen Tumulty of Swampland for the poke). The New York Times reports on new Census data today that shows young women in urban areas seem to be outearning their boy counterparts.
The analysis was prepared by Andrew A. Beveridge, a demographer at Queens College, who first reported his findings in Gotham Gazette, published online by the Citizens Union Foundation. It shows that women of all educational levels from 21 to 30 living in New York City and working full time made 117 percent of men’s wages, and even more in Dallas, 120 percent. Nationwide, that group of women made much less: 89 percent of the average full-time pay for men.
Just why is a matter of debate, says the paper, which cites a number of reasons: women graduating from college in greater numbers, gravitating to big cities, perhaps even putting the pedal to the metal career-wise in order to accommodate planned family leaves later in their careers. The hard numbers:
In 1970, all New York women in their 20s made $7,000 less than men, on average, adjusted for inflation. By 2000, they were about even. In 2005, according to an analysis of the latest census results they were making about $5,000 more: a median wage of $35,653, or 117 percent of the $30,560 reported by men in that age group.
Prepare for the enormous caveat:
Nationally, women in their 20s made a median income of $25,467, compared with $28,523 for men.
New York and Dallas do not the U.S.A. make. But, at least for women in those two cities, this is good news, right? So check out this Washington Post story today, based on research by Victoria Brescoll, a post-doctoral scholar at Yale University. She found:
A man who gets angry at work may well be admired for it but a woman who shows anger in the workplace is liable to be seen as "out of control" and incompetent, according to a new study presented on Friday.
In her study, she conducted three tests in which men and women watched videos of a job interview and were asked to assign the applicants a salary.
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague's late arrival at a meeting. Participants conferred the most status on the man who said he was angry, the second most on the woman who said she was sad, slightly less on the man who said he was sad, and least of all by a sizable margin on the woman who said she was angry.
Again, the hard numbers:
The average salary assigned to the angry man was almost $38,000 compared to about $23,500 for the angry woman and in the region of $30,000 for the other two candidates.
In another test, she told test participants the subject was a CEO:
"Participants rated the angry female CEO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee," Brescoll wrote. She said they viewed angry females as significantly more "out of control."
That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55,384 compared to $32,902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73,643.
Okay. First of all, what American CEO earns that little? Who were these test takers that they would assign such crap salaries?
But seriously. My initial reaction is, of course, anger. In the first test, the woman had ostensibly lost an account. What kind of moron is sad about a lost account? The tragedy in Minneapolis makes me sad. My mom's illness makes me sad. Losing an account would just piss me off. And that earns me a lower salary how?
The Wash Post saw implications in the CEO portion of the latter study for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. I don't--not personally, anyway. Hillary is so even keel that I would actually quite enjoy seeing her chew out an opponent at a debate.
Taking a step back, I wonder what the study does say about society's expecations of women. Perhaps it's just about semantics. The words we use to describe people in a business context are, after all, still stuck in an aggressive, male-dominated context. CEOs are titans or chainsaws or kings. They're admired even, or maybe because, they're bull-headed or mercurial or take-no-prisoners. Applied to women, these descriptives can seem jarring, even if the underlying meaning applies.
It's time to change that. Let's speak honestly about how we feel. With more young women graduating college than men and gunning their engines in the workplace, maybe a change is already underway: if the lead account exec's a gal and losing an account pisses her off, won't her colleagues accept that as a plausible reaction? Then, by the time her generation hits the corner office, maybe she won't have to disguise her feelings behind a feather fan. And maybe she won't have to pay with a marked-down salary.
August 2, 2007 2:11
Social networking overload
Like a lot of people I know, I maintain an increasingly sprawling presence online. Over the years I've owned and discarded numerous e-mail addresses; I now have one for personal mail, another for work. I've got a personal web site. There's my blog on my employer's site, and my poorly frequented blog on my own. People can connect to me on LinkedIn, and now on Gather.com. There are profiles of me on sites belonging to me, my employer, my book publisher, my agent, and a reporting fellowship I did in 2000. If you Google my full name, you get 47,000 results.
So when two people asked me recently if I had a Facebook page, I felt exhausted. You all know Facebook; if you're born after 1980, you're either on it or you're a recluse. The first person to ask me was my intern friend Melissa Kong, so I pshaw-pshawed it as something no grown-up would consider. But then George Lenard, an employment lawyer I frequently contact about stories, asked me the same question. "I thought it was for kids, too, but a couple of my business contacts have asked me recently," he said.
I'm going to check it out over the next few weeks, if only because my paperback is coming out and I'm looking for more ways to spread my name like butter. But let me know what your experiences are.
P.S. Oh, and check this out: I just got a release titled, "Social networking sites increase divorce rate"! It's from a divorce lawyer who claims that more and more of her cases pivot on evidence culled from straying spouses' accounts on Myspace and others in which he (typically he) claims to be single and lookin'. I don't worry that going on Facebook will lure me into adultery; I worry it'll lure me into wasting even more of my already inordinately waste-filled days.
August 1, 2007 9:45
Pregnant jobseekers: when to divulge the bulge?
As if pregnant women don't have enough on their minds, what with the nausea and the genetic testing and the elephant ankles. If you're interviewing while pregnant, is it wise to tell prospective employers of your impending change of family status? If so, when? How?
This came up recently over lunch with a friend, whose partner is expecting and currently job-hunting in the financial field. I knew of two others who had struggled with the same dilemma, with very different outcomes. My sister-in-law, a lawyer, told her new employers of her pregnancy, and of her plans to take an extended leave. They hired her anyway. But a friend, an academic, interviewed for a university teaching post when her bump was obvious. Though she made the final round and was flown up for the interview, she wasn't hired, ostensibly for reasons of "fit."
I asked employment lawyer and blawger George Lenard about the legalities of interviewing while pregnant. "Legally," he says, "pregnancy discrimination is against the law." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that. But there's still plenty of discrimination against pregnant jobseekers; the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Chaminade University of Hawaii in 2006, and USA Today reports that
Pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) jumped 39% from fiscal year 1992 to 2003.
Bottom line: a pregnant person isn't legally obligated to mention her condition in an interview. Moreover, a prospective employer isn't allowed to ask. If he or she does ask, in fact, the interviewer steps into murky legal waters; if then the pregnant jobseeker isn't hired, she may have a case for discrimination.
"Let’s say she walks in wearing a maternity dress, and the employer says, Are you pregnant?" says Lenard. "The general rule would be that that’s irrelevant; it’s not a quesiton you’d routinely ask a young woman: Are you now or are you planning to become pregnant? Employers take a certain risk by bringing it up." Not to mention the risk of offending those of us partial to the loose bag dress trend this summer.
Still, he says, "the difficult thing about hiring cases in general is you have often so many applicants that it’s very easy to just say we hired someone better qualified." Even so, "the way the market is now in a lot of fields, by the time they made the decision to fly someone in for an interview, and the position had been open for a while, and they'd had difficulty finding a suitable candidate--well, it makes it harder to say she just wasn't right."
All that said, there are risks to not telling prospective employers about your pregnancy. By taking the job, you're about to embark on an intimate and hopefully long-term relationship with your bosses. They're going to notice your excessive collection of muumuus at some point. And, when you tell them your due date, they're going to ask the accountants to help them count back the months. They're going to confer in a dark hallway, arms crossed, brows furrowed, their formerly glowing impressions of you now clouded by your deception. Sure, legally, they'd be fools to fire you now. But who needs that kind of rep?
Lenard sighs when I put this to him. On the question of whether or not to divulge the bulge, "I don't think there's a pat answer," he says. On the one hand, honesty is the best policy. On the other, your impending motherhood may be irrelevant to how you perform as, say, a software marketing manager. After knocking around the possible permutations, he comes upon what sounds to me like a reasonable tactic: if you're not yet so huge you might as well